memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
New IMDb templates Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template. The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Delete company --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) :My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::I think inline links to external sources should be used only sparingly, if possible avoided. How often do we really want to link to an article at the IMDb if it is about an person/film etc. that we do not want to have an own article about? Delete. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::Let's explain it this way: if you look at James Cromwell you can see it works well because you don't have to scroll down and click through IMDb to "L.A. Confidential" if you want to know something about this movie. And I doubt that L.A. Confidential is referenced in Trek, so we don't need an article. Btw: if we delete this, the inline links via blabla must be removed for the same reasons... --Memory 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::The Wikipedia links are different, in that they link to another Wiki. However, even those should be used at a minimum. The excessive IMDb links in an article are just annoying, at least in my opinion. By the way, the IMDb links on Cromwell (and some other pages, but not all) have been replaced with the (likely) preferred Wikipedia links, where applicable. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::And this is supposed to be a substitution for all the cases that no WP article exists ;-) --Memory 19:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::::There already is an interwiki link to titles at IMDb. If you put in Imdb:L.A. Confidential, it will bring you to a search page which contains a link at the top, here. I have trouble trying to get it to go straight to the page, because the interwiki link automatically replaces the spacing with an underscore ( _ ), which the IMDb search engine doesn't seem to understand. Anyway, I vote delete both.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Since everyone has at least agreed to delete the company template, that has been deleted. However, the name template might have to be kept, as we have three votes to keep it (Renegade, Alan, Memory) and four votes to delete it (Platypus, Cid, Tim, myself). This I do not believe constitutes a 2/3 majority needed to delete the template. --From Andoria with Love 03:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::Regarding the outcome, Alan didn't cast any vote on the remaining template. Still, let me address some of the above again: :::::When I said that, in my opinion, inline links to external sources should be used sparingly, this referred not only to non-Wikipedia links, and not only to actor pages, but to all of them. This site is about Star Trek - inline, off-site links should by definition only appear if the subject (actor, movie, item, concept) clearly has no Trek connection. In all other cases, we'd prefer an internal link. Before an external link is added, this decision has to be made. Second, is the loss of not inline-linking to completely unrelated movies and actors really that big? Someone reading MA is not necessarily interested in everything this actor did - in that case, he probably would have visited Wikipedia or IMDb instead - and in fact, he still can if we add both links in an "External links" section at the bottom of an article. Third, and this hasn't been brought up in this discussion, there even are guidelines that might apply in this case: Memory Alpha:Don't use external links where we'll want Memory Alpha links and Memory Alpha:Describe external links. -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I agree, and good catch with Alan -- you're right, he never voted on the remaining page. We'll need to remove the template from the articles before deleting it, though; I think I can handle that when I get through with my "rounds". ;) --From Andoria with Love 20:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::If we take an example, Elisha Cook, Jr., it is clear that it wouldn't be really logical to remove it, because nearly every other film on that page is linked with a WP-link, so why not "Terror at Alcatraz" with an IMDB-link (as long as no WP-link is possible)? --Memory 21:04, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::As I said above, remove "not only ... non-Wikipedia links, but ... ''all of them''" from the main text. Of course it would be strange to have all but one film or series linked from a page, but still: This is a Star Trek encyclopedia. Do we need a direct link to Magnum, P.I.? Gunsmoke? Perry Mason? After all, we don't link to all possibly existing articles on Wikipedia from other articles, just because the phrase in question has no Trek relation... :::::BTW, the next off-site link in that row would be Wagon Train, which might even be a case of an external link where we'll want a Memory Alpha link. After all, wasn't Star Trek specifically called "Wagon Train to the stars" by Roddenberry? -- Cid Highwind 02:00, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::MA might not need this, but it makes it easier for the readers to get more informations about something specific from the work of the actors without the detour via a link at the bottom. If it does no harm, why not offer such a possibility? --Memory 22:00, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::This is becoming less of a discussion about this specific template to be deleted and more of a discussion about external links in general. We might want to move (or split) this somewhere else soon, but anyway... The question is: Do we really want to link each and every occurence of something, even if it has no relation to Trek? I feel that it threatens the idea of Memory Alpha as an independent, special-purpose encyclopedia if we start to interweave it too much with other encyclopedias and similar sites. Since I don't know why actor pages should be a special case regarding this, let's take another example: Australia, and assume that every possible internal link has already been created. Then, why don't we link externally to Wikipedia:Melbourne, Wikipedia:Sydney, Wikipedia:Jenolan, Wikipedia:Botany Bay and probably about half a dozen other pages? Answer: Because we concentrate on Trek content here. Someone reading the Australia article here either wants to read about Sydney in a Trek context (and apparently, that context doesn't exist), or is surely able to follow the link to Wikipedia:Australia at the bottom of the page, from where he can find his way to all the information about Sydney he'll ever need. -- Cid Highwind 15:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Superfluous Babel categories :...are: en-N, en-4, en-3, en-2, en-1, en-0, de-N, de-4, de-3, de-2, de-1, de-0, es-N, es-4, es-3, es-2, es-1, fr-N, fr-3, fr-2, fr-1, it-2, it-1, nl-1 --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) I was going to create the remaining Babel templates and categories, but then I thought to myself... How many of these categories will actually have people in them? Like some other things, I don't think Memory Alpha needs categories for each level of a language, simply because we don't have that many people and with a language like, say, Italian, I don't think there's a need for five categories. I'm posting this here rather than Ten Forward because I don't want to turn this into another "Was that a formal vote?" situation like the Duty Roster. So, I'm nominating all categories on Memory Alpha:Babel, outside the "User it", "User sv", etc, for deletion. The only exception should be English, which should be standard but not necessarily native. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I completely agree (delete) - let's have one category per language, listing all editors who actually speak that language at any level, but not 5 categories each. The english categories are not suggested for deletion here, but even they might be trimmed down IMO. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I have no problem trimming the Babel model -- the form i created it in was designed to reproduce the more extensive MA/de and Wikipedia versions, but i agree that for MA's size and activity, it might not be necessary to sort them in the current form. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::Wow. Um... yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::Could you post which links you specifically want deleted? --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::Sorry. I voted to have all those categories listed above be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :The Vedek mentioned all categories outside "User xx", obviously referring to all subcategories from "xx-0" to "xx-N" with "xx" being any one of the existing language shortcuts. I still agree with that. A user either speaks a language (=is in the main category for that language) or he doesn't (=is not in the main category). For further details and to not break the existing templates on user pages, we should keep all templates, at least for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 20:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I really don't want to list them all, but basically anything listed on Memory Alpha:Babel under categories outside "en", "es", etc... so Category:User en-N, Category:User en-4, etc, which is what Cid said. I take back what I originally said about keeping English separated, but I do like having the templates at the different levels. It's just the categories that seem redundant, considering anyone under the five categories for a given language is already in that languages main category. I've adjusted the English templates to remove the extra categories and I think it looks fine. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' the categories, keep the templates --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I vote to delete the extra categories. Could we perhaps, include the main language category link ("Users who speak Spanish" or whatever) with the extra templates?--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) If the links at the top of this subject are the ones up for deletion, I suggest people delink their user pages from them, as only 4 or 5 are actually orphaned links. --Alan del Beccio 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :All of the above are category links, which should only be used in the Babel templates. We seem to have consensus to delete the categories, so it's the template pages that need to be checked. -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Bio-genevesium ;Bio-genevesium : Not cited and does not link anywhere. Also, a Google search did not find a single reference to this term, so it looks as though it is an imaginary term. Either that, or misspelled. --From Andoria with Love 17:21, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*Its simply mis-spelt... its actually Bio-Gen'o'''vesium. Should be moved, now I've added some more information, and that a picture has been added. Zsingaya [[User talk:Zsingaya|''Talk]] 19:50, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) :**'move' complete, recommend deleting misspelled "bio-genevesium", recommend keeping capitalization redirect "bio-Genovesium" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:16, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Works for me. Delete mis-spelled redirect. --From Andoria with Love 02:45, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. The article has a source cited...the picture. -- Krevaner 12:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*You are of course aware that it's been redirected, right? In any case, this is now a vote to delete the redirect, which in any case will likely be deleted since it's misspelled. :-P --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :**'deleted'--Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:44, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC) Vaadwaur history The pna discussion on the talk page seems to point toward a consensus that this one should be merged with the Vaadwaur species page so I thought I'd just get the process going. Logan 5 03:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Both pages seem to be short enough to be merged instead of kept separate. I agree with merge/keep redirect. I also just created a new template to suggest such merges in the future, see and comment on MA:TF ("Misplaced merge suggestions"). -- Cid Highwind 21:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Redirect' Jaz 01:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' --Dogbreathcanada 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Template:Pna-episode ;Template:Pna-episode : Essentially unused (4 pages) and, more important, a near duplicate of Template:Pna-incomplete, just specialized on episodes. I don't think this is necessary, delete and replace with the incomplete message. -- Cid Highwind 14:47, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment'. I'm abstaining because of personal bias in the Duty Roster vs Template debate, but I wanted to note that this could be used in conjunction with the Duty Roster if it links to the roster or something similar to that. The idea of categorizing episodes this way obviously fell through, but if people want to use this the way we do with multiple templates, I don't see a problem. Weyoun 02:47, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I'm not too sure if I'd call this unnessary or not. I know we've tried to avoid placing the incomplete template in episode articles in the past, so this seems like a good way to handle it. Then again, I'm not entirely certain a template is needed for one section of an article, and it is a near-duplicate of the incomplete template. I don't know -- this is one of those cases where I'll have to remain neutral until I hear some more opinions as to why or why not to keep this. --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::My first question would be: Is there any good reason why it was avoided to use the incomplete template on episode pages? I can't imagine any if we're placing a similarly worded one linking to the same category on the page at the same time... -- Cid Highwind 02:14, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::Don't ask me. I just work here. :P All I know is that incomplete templates were previously added to the episodes, but were subsequently deleted because "episode articles don't get templates". --From Andoria with Love 21:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Since we have the "EDR" project of Vedek Dukat we don't need a special template for incomplete episode pages, not even the regular pna. So delete it. --Memory 23:16, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Actually, I think we should keep this and use it in conjunction with the Duty Roster to keep things in synch. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:22, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Please, the PNA messages and the Duty Roster are completely different approaches, and I really think they don't mix well. Surely I don't feel like "updating the episode duty roster" manually (as the undiscussed change to the template asks me to do) if the way a PNA template is intended to work is to automatically do something similar. Vice versa, if I'm working with the Duty Roster, why should I additionally add templates to pages I'm not actually working on? Regarding the "no 'incomplete' templates on episode pages" I don't see any good reason for that, nor am I aware of any discussion or decision regarding this. Episode articles are articles, and if they are incomplete, they should be marked as such. -- Cid Highwind 02:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' and apply to episode pages. I agree with the Vedek (that seems to happen a lot lately) on this one. As far as the automatic updating with templates, it's just common courtesy to update the duty roster so we don't get our wires crossed when you write a summary, plus it lets new people know the roster exists. Thus the other concern is irrelevant if we simply apply it to all episodes currently listed on the roster. It's the best of both words. :-) Weyoun 08:11, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::As I said above, I know I wouldn't (if I used that message in the first place) - not to prove a point, but because I would expect this PNA message to behave just like every other PNA message: I add a template "describing a general problem" somewhere, and somewhere else a link to that page pops up on a list. "Common courtesy" is nice in theory, but this suggestion complicates what would otherwise be a nice&clean process by asking me to do exactly those things that this very class of templates is supposed to avoid. Besides, this is, again, a case of some link to this page "creeping into" other unrelated processes. We already have a discussion about this somewhere, so let's discuss this there, if still necessary. Can we get some more comments by others, perhaps? -- Cid Highwind 11:24, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::I think I'm of the mind that it's Vedek Dukat's brainchild and therefore we should let him do what he sees fit (so long as it make sense), after all it does say official duty roster. But in this case, I don't think it is a big problem - if an episode has been finished and the Duty Roster has not yet been updated, someone will eventually update the Roster. So the extra template is probably not necessary. (The Duty Roster does have its purpose and it serves us well enough.) Makon 11:37, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Although I think this could be used in conjunction with the duty roster without causing confusion, I have no intention of going away and can continue to hunt down people who don't know the duty roster exists. So in the end, I guess works fine, although this makes things complicated for archivists who want to work on non-episode pages. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Minnesota & Mississippi River ;Mississippi River and Minnesota : No known Trek relevance. This was created along with Minnesota; however the latter had been previously deleted due to having no direct Trek relevance, so it qualified as an immediate delete. Strike that, the Minnesota page has been created again, so I must bring that up for deletion as well. Again, it was previously deleted for having no direct Trek content (see the discussion here), so by all rights and reasons, it should be deleted immediately, but I will place it here to appease the user who created it and prevent a deletion/creation/edit war. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete, I also added the notice to the Minnesota page. — THOR ''=/\='' 01:43, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 20:10, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Danube ;Danube:I'm not sure if this was ever directly referenced in Trek... the only wikilink is from Germany and the only relevance I can think of is to the Danube class, but we've previously decided that starship namesakes don't deserve their own articles unless they were directly referenced. If the river itself was referenced directly, this should be moved to Danube River, sourced, and cleaned up. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 20:10, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' was ''Danube''-class, move the info as background over there (if it isn't there already), and delete this. --From Andoria with Love 21:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' with ''Danube''-class ad delete this. --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Arachnid nebula ;Arachnid nebula:Unintentional duplicate of Arachnid Nebula. I've tried to merge any relevant or useful content from the former into the latter. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 20:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *A simple merge of histories is all that was needed. I went ahead and did so, although I probably should have waited until it was discussed further here. Oh, well! :P --From Andoria with Love 21:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Class 5 nebula ;Class 5 nebula:While worthy speculation, I don't believe the McAllister Nebula was ever explicitly referred to as "class 5" and I can't find any other reference to this classification. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 21:01, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 21:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) * The only possible support is in the name "McAllister C5"...but that's pretty flimsy, IMOCapt. Christopher Donovan 06:11, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) AI AI has absolutely nothing. I vote Delete for cleanup purpouses. --Galaxy001 22:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Sorry, it was made a redirect as I was adding this comment. Keep the redirect. :) --Galaxy001 22:46, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Entente Duplicate of USS Entente, no need for this one... Logan 5 05:42, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) * I absolutely agree...and I WROTE the thing...chalk it up to poor phrasing on my Search inquiry. Apologies all around!Capt. Christopher Donovan 06:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Redirect to avoid future mix ups. Weyoun 08:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) **'merged' -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:41, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC) Planets that haven't been mentioned on Star Trek ;Pentarus I, Pentarus IV, Pollux I, Pollux II, Pollux III *Unless they were shown in some way or specifically referred to, all the useful information about them (the fact they probably exist) can be imparted more simply in the Pollux system and Pentarus system articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:34, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC) ; Pollux V (added Jan 21) * Delete all --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *From the article, it seems as if Pollux V was mentioned in passing. If so, keep that one. Definitely delete all planets that weren't mentioned directly. -- Cid Highwind 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Yep, Pollux V WAS mentioned in the episode (in the first line of the episode actually), so of course keep this one. Kennelly 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Q-history This page could be merged with the Q(species) page and this page deleted. --Galaxy001 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. It doesn't even need to be merged, there's nothing there that isn't on the Q species page. Jaz 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', there's no new info on there to merge. --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) T'Lak This article already exists as Talok. A google search seems to confirm that T'Lak is not a Trek name or at least a spelling even used to associate with this character, whereas the latter finds multiple confirmed results. --Alan del Beccio 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete/Merge Content' I agree that T'Lak should go, however T'Lak has a lot more information than Talak. If you're going to get rid of T'Lak, at least bring some of the information from it over to Talak. *'Merge' into Talok and delete this. --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC) * Merge/'delete'. --From Andoria with Love 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)